Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2008, Publication: 97th ILC session (2008)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Bangladesh (Ratification: 1972)

A Government representative reaffirmed that his Government was fully committed to complying with various ILO Conventions, as well as to promoting labour union activities and freedom of association in Bangladesh. His Government took seriously into account any allegations of the violation of ILO Conventions and had looked into the allegations raised very carefully. He recalled in this respect that his country had ratified a total of 33 ILO Conventions, including seven fundamental Conventions.

He recalled that the Labour Law 2006 had been enacted after protracted consultations with stakeholders over a period of 14 years. The Labour Law fostered trade union activities, and he noted in this connection that various trade unions had held elections in recent months and that permissions for the right to organize were being granted to labour union activists. Nevertheless, some parties still felt that the Labour Law 2006 needed improving.

He also noted that there had been cases when non-workers had attempted to foment unrest and vandalize small businesses. He recalled that the Government was responsible for maintaining public order and affirmed that the law enforcement agencies had shown great restraint in such circumstances. The action taken by the law enforcement agencies had been in accordance with the law of the land under the direct supervision of judicial magistrates. Such action was not intended to harass trade union leaders or prevent them from pursuing legitimate union activities. Although the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) had referred to a few cases, he emphasized that they were isolated instances which did not establish a pattern of violations. As a preventive measure, the Government had established a Task Force on Labour Welfare with the participation of worker representatives and a Crisis Management Committee headed by a senior official of the Ministry of Labour and Employment.

Turning to the specific allegations contained in the report of the Committee of Experts, he affirmed that none of the people mentioned were still in custody and that all of them had been released on bail. The Government was not actively pursuing their cases. He added that there were over 5,000 factories in the country with 2.5 million workers and that it was not easy to maintain law and order in all of the factories. The Government was committed to ensuring law and order in factories with the utmost restraint. However, certain non-workers took advantage of the situation, and in certain cases took refuge in trade union offices. Extra care was taken in enforcing the law in such cases. For example, the 250 garment workers detained in 2006 had all been released and their cases were not being pursued.

With reference to export processing zones (EPZs), he recalled that they had been in existence for the past two decades with a view to promoting foreign direct investment in the country. There were over 250 factories in EPZs and their owners were committed to establishing fully fledged trade unions in their factories by 2010 in accordance with the EPZ Workers' Associations and Industrial Relations Act 2004. In the meantime, workers' associations had been established in all factories in EPZs as from November 2006 to look after the welfare of workers. There were presently 177 elected workers' representation and welfare committees in EPZs. The wages and other benefits enjoyed by workers were significantly higher in EPZs than elsewhere in the country, and laws and regulations on trade union activities in EPZs were constantly being improved.

He also described the activities undertaken by the Government to promote freedom of association and decent work conditions. He indicated that a policy was being finalized in consultation with worker representatives and NGOs for the elimination of child labour, with a view to ensuring workplaces free of child labour. Several projects were being undertaken, including one time-bound ILO project which was in its second phase and was aimed at removing 45,000 child labourers from hazardous work in eight major cities. Another Government project involving multiple stakeholders was intended to remove 30,000 children from hazardous work, provide them with non-formal education and skills training and offer their parents microcredit to secure their livelihoods. With ILO assistance, guidelines had been developed for shipbreaking workers and training was provided to them on such matters as occupational safety and health. A project was also being implemented to educate tea estate workers with a view to helping them avoid social violence and infection with sexually transmissible diseases. He added that minimum wage provisions had been announced in the ready-made garment sector and in 35 other sectors. Moreover, the minimum wage had achieved a 98 per cent implementation rate in the ready-made garment sector.

With regard to the Tripartite Consultation Committee, he indicated that it was a very effective body with 60 members and that the Government was committed to making it more representative. He referred in this respect to a recent meeting with representative trade union leaders at which decisions had been taken to facilitate more vigorous trade union activities and to make the Tripartite Consultation Committee more representative by co-opting new members.

In conclusion, he noted that the caretaker Government was preparing for the holding of elections in December 2008 and was relaxing the measures respecting trade union activities. Efforts were being made to promote corporate social responsibility so that employers felt obliged to support the welfare of workers, and the conditions of workers were being monitored by the Factories and Establishments Inspectorate.

The Employer members recalled that the Committee had been dealing with the issue of freedom of association in Bangladesh since 1983. The last discussions had been held in 1997 and 1999. The General Survey of 1994 on Convention No. 87 had emphasized that the legislation in Bangladesh was not in conformity with the Convention. The Committee had repeatedly requested the Government to bring the country's legislation into conformity with the requirements of Convention No. 87, as had the Committee of Experts, and to remove the restrictions on freedom of association in law and practice.

The Government had repeatedly referred to work on the legislation in various legislative commissions, but so far without visible results. The first paragraph of the observation of the Committee of Experts showed optimism and hope that after many years, improvements would now materialize. The new Labour Law 2006, had been enacted, which had superseded the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The Committee of Experts had analysed the new Law in detail as far as freedom of association was concerned. The Employer members were bound to express great disappointment with the results of the analysis. Based on this analysis, they were under the impression that all provisions criticized in previous years by the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts had once again been incorporated into the new Labour Law. For example, managers and workers in the public administration continued to be excluded from the right to establish workers' organizations, in the same way as many other groups of workers, such as casual workers. Certain measures taken by trade unions to find new members were qualified as "intimidating", and therefore inadmissible. The minimum membership requirement for the registration of a trade union was still 30 per cent of all the workers in an enterprise. It was prohibited to be a member of multiple trade unions and violations of this prohibition were sanctioned with detention. With regard to the point concerning restrictions on the right to strike raised by the Committee of Experts, the Employer members referred to their usual position on this subject. The Employer members were not able to relate to the fact that the experts paid so much attention to a matter which was not regulated in Convention No. 87.

The Employer members had referred to only a few of the points raised by the Committee of Experts. Nevertheless, they wondered whether the Government had totally misunderstood or simply ignored the requests by both the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts to bring the legislation into line with the Convention. Against the background of the comments made by the Government representative, the Employer members welcomed that he accepted the fact that the new Labour Code had to be amended once again.

The Employer members also expressed concern at the developments in practice in the country, such as the multiple detentions of trade unionists, especially trade union leaders, in the context of demonstrations, and the punishments imposed on them. The Government had taken the position that in the course of demonstrations, public law and order needed to be maintained. This, however, could not justify all the measures against trade unionists, as described by the Committee of Experts. Regarding the implementation of the Convention in practice, the Employer members agreed with the Committee of Experts that workers' and employers' organizations could only exercise their rights in conditions free from threats, pressure and intimidation of any kind. In situations such as those described in the observation, a targeted strategy of de-escalation might be necessary.

The third issue indicated by the Committee of Experts was freedom of association of workers in EPZs. In EPZs, a multitude of complex regulations existed which, in part, set insurmountable obstacles to the establishment of workers' organizations. The Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee had repeatedly requested the Government to ensure the implementation of the Convention in EPZs as well.

Finally, the Employer members referred to the question of the government official responsible for trade union registration who still possessed far-reaching powers over access to and the supervision of trade union offices. This point remained unclear.

The Employer members urged the Government to report in detail whether, in addition to the points already raised in relation to the Labour Law, there were any other provisions in the law which might be in accordance with the Convention. Otherwise, the new Labour Law would need to be amended as soon as possible. Moreover, the provisions for the establishment of workers' organizations in EPZs would have to be aligned with the Convention. In practice, freedom of association could only be developed and exercised in a climate free from threats. If there were still any obstacles, the Government should - 26 years after its ratification of the Convention - request the Office for technical assistance.

The Worker members recalled that the case of Bangladesh, concerning the application of Convention No. 98, had been discussed in 2006, when the Employer and Worker members, together with a significant number of Governments, had emphasized the extreme seriousness of the case. This had led to the Committee adopting harsh conclusions on the importance of ensuring suitable protection against acts of interference and guaranteeing the exercise of free and voluntary collective bargaining in the public and private sectors without legal obstacles, and on the important difficulties encountered by workers in the exercise of trade union rights in EPZs. On that occasion, the Committee had decided to include its conclusions in a special paragraph of its report.

This year, the case of Bangladesh was being examined in relation to the application of Convention No. 87, which was closely linked to Convention No. 98. The comments made by the Committee of Experts on the application of Convention No. 87 were discouraging. In August 2007, the ITUC had, among other information, made a series of grave allegations to the Office concerning violations of civil liberties relating to: the death of a trade unionist killed by the police; the particularly harsh repression by a rapid intervention army battalion; the arrest of strikers and demonstrators, and in particular of trade union leaders; harassment by the police against the American Center for International Labor Solidarity; the shots fired at Mohammed Firoz Mia, President of the Bangladeshi telephone union.

In its observation, the Committee of Experts recalled that freedom of association could only be exercised in a climate free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind. To a certain extent, the violence concerned trade union campaigns for the defence of workers' rights in EPZs, where the EPZ Workers' Associations and Industrial Relations Act 2004 was still in force and violated the fundamental rights of workers in several respects. The first of these violations concerned the prohibition of establishing trade unions in EPZs, which was due to be removed at the end of 2006. The situation still remained unchanged, however, or at least the Government had not provided any information on this subject.

It should be recalled that the Committee on Freedom of Association, on the basis of a complaint by the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers' Federation (ITGLWF), had already adopted important conclusions on trade union rights in EPZs. The Committee on Freedom of Association had recalled that workers in EPZs, despite the economic arguments often put forward, should enjoy the trade union rights provided for by the freedom of association Conventions like other workers, without distinction whatsoever. The Committee on Freedom of Association had also considered that the blanket denial of the right to organize in EPZs amounted to a serious violation of the principles of freedom of association, and particularly Article 2 of Convention No. 87, which guaranteed all workers the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. With a view to confirming the legal framework of the Convention, the Committee on Freedom of Association had formulated 15 concrete recommendations.

In its observation, the Committee of Experts also noted serious discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention. In the same way as the Committee of Experts, the Worker members observed that the new Labour Law, which replaced the Industrial Relations Ordinance in 2006, did not contain any improvement. On the contrary, in certain regards it had introduced new restrictions: the exclusion of managerial and administrative employees from the right to organize; the exclusion of a series of sectors; the restriction of membership in trade unions and the participation in trade union elections only to those workers who were employed in the establishment concerned; the sanctions envisaged for certain methods of recruiting union members; the strict criteria of representativeness; the prohibition on unregistered unions from collecting funds; and several restrictions on the right to strike. The Worker members shared the deep concern expressed by the Committee of Experts in its observation and the urgent call by the Committee of Experts to bring an end to the serious violations of trade union rights and the denial of the fundamental rights of workers in EPZs and elsewhere.

The Committee of Experts had made a large number of comments since 1989 on the application of Conventions Nos 87 and 98 by Bangladesh and the Conference Committee had adopted conclusions on several occasions, drawing attention in particular to the problems in EPZs. Over the same period, the Committee on Freedom of As- sociation had also formulated several recommendations. It could therefore be concluded that this was a case of con- tinued failure to apply the freedom of association Conventions.

If the case was on the list, it was also due to the developments in the situation at the national level, which could be classified as extremely serious. Those who had hoped that the situation would improve after the installation of the new caretaker Government had been mistaken. On the contrary, the situation had deteriorated. Trade union activity had become almost impossible. Trade union secretariats had closed down. Strikes and demonstrations were prohibited. Trade union leaders were arrested or intimidated by criminal prosecutions, which were often totally unjustified. Trade union activists in enterprises were obliged to resign and were under physical threat. New unions could not register. Moreover, the national press reported that the police had fired on workers in the garment industry who were demonstrating in favour of a readjustment of their purchasing power following the steep rise in the prices of basic foodstuffs, a claim that was clearly justified when the basic wage was no higher than US$25 a month. It should also be noted that the Govern- ment had prohibited unions from celebrating May Day.

In its observation, the Committee of Experts proposed substantial amendments to the legislation to bring it into conformity with Convention No. 87. However, over recent months, the workers had been faced by even more restrictive legislative proposals. The Government was clearly taking advantage of the state of emergency that the country had been in since January 2007 to engage in a heavy-handed repression of trade union rights. This not only gave rise to social problems, but also to economic difficulties, particularly for the garment industry. The employment of 2.5 million workers in these sectors was under serious threat because Western countries and enterprises were increasingly demanding respect for the fundamental rights of workers.

The Government member of Pakistan noted with satisfaction that several measures had been taken by the Government of Bangladesh to implement Convention No. 87. He was encouraged by the fact that permission for labour activities had been granted under the 2006 Labour Law, which fostered trade union activities. Several other measures, including the establishment of the Tripartite Consultative Committee and steps taken by the Ministry responsible for shipbreaking, were also a positive indication. He hoped that the new Government, which would take office after the elections to be held in December 2008, would take further steps and remove the prohibitions on trade union activities in EPZs and on membership of multiple trade unions.

The Worker member of Bangladesh said that, following confrontational politics in Bangladesh, the President, acting under the country's Constitution, had declared a state of emergency and formed a caretaker Government, which had taken office in January 2007. All political and trade union activities had subsequently been suspended. The application of Convention No. 87 had also been suspended, leaving trade union leaders unable to exercise their right to freedom of association. The Government had undertaken some reforms with a view to holding free and fair parliamentary elections, which were scheduled for December 2008. The Tripartite Consultative Committee had been formed to discuss, negotiate and find solutions to labour issues, and to develop a strategy to restore the application of Convention No. 87. Several high-level meetings had been held but, despite intense pressure on the Government, freedom of association had yet to be restored.

Meanwhile, as a result of sky-rocketing prices, the purchasing power of low-paid workers had been tremendously affected, resulting in demonstrations by workers and organizations in the garment sector to voice legitimate demands in defence of their wages and livelihood. After prolonged agitation by the labour movement in 2006, a tripartite memorandum of understanding had been signed with the previous Government, fulfilling the demands of the garment workers. Although its provisions had been implemented by some parts of the garment industry, the precarious situation of many companies had prevented its universal implementation. If the Government did not restore Convention No. 87, more agitation and demonstration would follow, despite the current state of emergency.

Unprecedented price rises had gravely affected the country's workers. The minimum wage had been fixed at US$25 per month, which was insufficient for even a single person to live on. In the light of price increases, wages needed to be reviewed and the minimum wage fixed at US$75 per month. Workers had also faced problems as a result of the absence of fundamental trade union rights, which jeopardized and severely hindered the exercise of human rights, as well as the application of Convention No. 87.

The Government had proposed the repeal of the Act on political parties, which contained a provision stating that all political parties had to include a labour organization. This had the effect of politicizing trade unions, and he therefore welcomed the Government's proposal. His organization was strongly in favour of establishing a non-partisan trade union movement in Bangladesh, an aim which was also being pursued and promoted by the ILO.

In 2006, during the last tenure of the previous Government, a number of labour laws had been enacted or amended to the great detriment of the trade union movement. It was now mandatory that, soon after receiving an application for union registration, the registration authority had to provide the employer concerned with a list of the union's proposed leaders. While few unions in fact sought registration, those who did found that the employer had dismissed all the proposed leaders and had them brutally beaten by hired thugs. Another provision stipulated that if the Director of Labour failed to conduct an election for any reason within the required period, the union currently serving as collective bargaining agent (CBA) would remain as such for an unlimited period, which violated the democratic rights of workers.

The caretaker Government had raised some points for discussion by the Tripartite Consultative Committee, including the requirement that there could be only one union in each establishment, that union offices should not be established within 200 yards of the enterprise concerned, and that anyone intending to run for election to any trade union office should first obtain training on trade unions. Trade union leaders had voiced strong opposition to such proposals at meetings of the Tripartite Consultative Committee, and Government representatives had said that they would not be enacted without trade union support. He hoped that the Government would keep its promise.

With regard to multinational enterprises, the speaker recalled that, within the tripartite system which had existed before the state of emergency, many companies had been reluctant to discuss matters relating to contract labour. Despite strong opposition from the unions, many companies were engaging contract workers, while at the same time implementing a "voluntary" retirement scheme on a compulsory basis. Freedom of association in EPZs had virtually disappeared although, following several meetings with the ILO and other bodies, the Government had eventually decided to allow the formation of consultative committees in the respective industries in EPZs. He expressed the hope that full freedom of association would be established in EPZs.

The speaker urged the ILO and the Committee of Experts to put pressure on the Government and employers to stop the current outrage, amend anti-worker laws and restore the application of Convention No. 87 in Bangladesh, in order to ensure a healthy and democratic trade union atmosphere.

An observer representing the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers' Federation (ITGLWF) said that, in June 2006, the Conference Committee had requested the Government of Bangladesh to eliminate obstacles to trade union activities in EPZs, prevent interfer- ence in trade union affairs and set lower limits for trade union registration and recognition. Two years later, freedom of association had in reality been eliminated following the outlawing of trade union activity under the emergency regulations imposed in January 2007. For 17 months, trade unions had been prevented from organizing, meeting members and even holding statutory meetings for the renewal of the mandates of their leaders, and the Government was now proposing even higher thresholds for trade union recognition. As a direct result, worker exploitation had intensified and, in the absence of worker representation, near anarchy prevailed when tensions mounted because of the frequent late payment of wages, cheating on overtime pay, and the regular aggressions against workers.

For the past year and a half, every week had brought new reports of unrest arising from extreme exploitation. The newspapers today had run reports of 50,000 garment workers damaging 50 factories after one worker had been killed. The previous day had seen reports of hundreds of garment workers rioting and forcing closure of 20 factories because they were being paid below the minimum wage and cheated on overtime. This was what happened when workers' representation was repressed and workers went leaderless. Workers in EPZs had gone largely unrepresented during the 20 years of EPZs' existence. Repeated promises had been made to grant EPZ workers freedom of association, but those promises had been broken, and workers were as far away as ever from being able to combine and bargain freely. Suppression of workers' rights had resulted in a legal minimum wage of less than 80 cents a day, or US$22 per month, which was well below the United Nations "absolute poverty" level. Workers now spent 70 per cent of their wages on rice alone.

The Government itself admitted that only 51 per cent of garment companies met the minimum standards on wages and basic working conditions. Labour inspectors had reported 37,033 labour law violations in 2006 and 48,291 in 2007, but cases filed against errant companies had fallen from 5,684 in 2006 to only 428 in 2007 - and this at a time when the garment industry was booming. The garment sector expected exports of US$11 billion in 2008, with inward investment in EPZs predicted to top US$1 billion.

He appreciated the difficulties faced by the caretaker Government in rescuing Bangladesh from the political inaction and corruption of past decades, but the workers were not responsible for the situation, and yet they were being penalized through the denial of their rights, impoverishment and inhuman treatment. He cited numerous examples of detention and maltreatment of trade unionists and of abuse of workers, including coercion to work extremely long hours, leading to death in certain cases.

Not surprisingly, labour unrest had become widespread. Indeed, in February, a deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Labour and Employment had admitted that the "illtreatment of workers and wrong handling of issues" was one of the main reasons of labour unrest. The chief inspector of factories had agreed that agitation was natural when workers were not being paid their wages. But instead of promoting mature industrial relations through dialogue based on freedom of association and the right to bargain, the caretaker Government was acting to limit long-term worker empowerment, both inside and outside EPZs.

Appearing to act under pressure from investors in EPZs, as well as domestic industry, the Government was proposing Labour Code amendments outlawing trade union offices within 200 metres of factories; preventing anyone not trained by the Government from assuming trade union office; removing the need for labour court approval for the cancellation of trade union registration; and increasing from 30 to 50 per cent the percentage of members needed for trade union recognition. The proposals were in clear violation of Convention No. 87 and the conclusions of the Conference Committee.

Garment workers in Bangladesh, who were mainly women, should not be allowed to drop further into serfdom. The ILO could not let Bangladesh drive trade unions out of existence. The Conference Committee's report should include a special paragraph on Bangladesh demanding the full application of the principles of freedom of association, including in EPZs; the dropping of false charges against trade union leaders and activists and the cessation of campaigns of harassment against trade union activity; and the full application of the law in every factory. In addition, the ILO should fully investigate, through a high-level mission, the labour rights situation in Bangladesh with a view to offering technical assistance to redraft the Labour Law.

The Government representative of Bangladesh expressed appreciation of the comments made by certain speakers and wished to reply to some of the issues raised during the discussion of the case. As admitted by trade union leaders, it had been necessary for the caretaker Government to hold the political parties responsible for the role that they had played in the crisis affecting the country. In certain cases, trade union leaders had been involved in that crisis and would therefore also be tried for any crimes committed. However, he emphasized that due process was being followed and that any trials would be for committing crimes and not for running trade union activities. He added that the caretaker Government had entered into discussions with the political parties, and more recently with trade unions with a view to broadening the consultation process. He recalled that elections would be held in 2008 and that the newly elected Government would undoubtedly withdraw many of the measures that had been taken over the past months, including the withdrawal of measures suspending the application of Conventions Nos 87 and 98. He further recalled that the Labour Law of 2006, which had been adopted after a consultation process lasting 14 years, was already subject to a process of amendment to bring it into line with the Convention. Furthermore, in view of the need to give enterprises which invested in EPZs the necessary time, under the terms of the agreement signed with employers, trade union activities would resume fully in EPZs by 2010. He noted in this respect that, although workers enjoyed better conditions in EPZs, there had also been unrest at internationally managed EPZ factories. This was a cause of concern for the High-Level Crisis Management Committee, which included worker representatives. It should also be noted that inspectors covered EPZs and that labour regulations had been prepared and would start applying in such zones. With reference to minimum wages, he referred to the efforts to extend minimum wage provisions to other sectors, including tea plantation workers. In conclusion, he expressed the hope that Bangladesh would have a Parliament by 2009 which would be able to take measures to improve the implementation of ILO Conventions.

The Employer members urged the Government to make efforts to translate the provisions of the Convention into law as soon as possible. They also called on the Govern- ment to provide all the information requested by the Committee of Experts as soon as possible. The Employer members recognized that the Government had had recourse to the technical assistance of the Office in the past and requested the Government representative to specify whether the Government was prepared to request assistance on the problems highlighted by the Committee of Experts in the present case.

The Worker members thanked the Government representative for his reply, as well as the Committee of Experts for its very detailed analysis of the application of Convention No. 87 in Bangladesh, both with regard to trade union rights in EPZs and the new Labour Law 2006. The reaction of the caretaker Government that responsibility for the allegations rested with previous Governments was foreseeable. However, it should be noted that the new Government had not made any effort to improve the situation. On the contrary, it was using the situation of the state of emergency to seriously jeopardize all trade union rights. Moreover, the legislation currently under consideration regulated trade union activity in an even more restrictive manner.

This was a case of serious and persistent failure to comply with the fundamental rights of workers for two decades, which was giving rise to a very explosive social condition and which also endangered much of the country's economy. For all these reasons, the Worker members fully endorsed the conclusions of the Committee of Experts concerning both EPZs and the revision of the Labour Law 2006. In addition, it was necessary, as a matter of urgency, to call on those responsible to put an end to the persistent attacks on freedom of association and trade union rights. The question arose as to whether the situation would change after the election of a new Government. In the light of past experience, doubts remained.

In 2006, the Committee had decided to include a special paragraph in its report for non-compliance with Convention No. 98. Following the refusal to receive technical assistance from the Office and also considering the close relationship between Conventions Nos 87 and 98, the serious allegations of failure to comply with Convention No. 87, and the deterioration of the situation since 2006, the Worker members requested the Government to accept a high-level technical assistance mission.

The Government representative of Bangladesh emphasized that a detailed report was being prepared on all the issues raised by the Committee of Experts so that it could be submitted in due course. With regard to the question of technical assistance, he believed that it would be more logical for the Government to assess where such assistance was needed before going on to request it. Moreover, he did not see the need to include the case in a special paragraph of the Committee's report. He recalled that certain technical missions had been received by the country a few years ago and that a tripartite consultation process was being developed. He therefore considered that it would be better to wait until the new Parliament was in place in 2009. The Government of Bangladesh was accordingly prepared to accept ILO assistance, but needed to work out the areas in which such assistance was needed. He emphasized that his Government was not refusing such assistance.

The Employer and Worker members, in light of the response of the Government representative, called for the present case to be set out in a special paragraph of the Committee's report.

Conclusions

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government representative and the debate that followed.

The Committee observed that the Committee of Experts' comment referred to serious violations of the Convention both in law and in practice, including: allegations of the raiding of the offices of the Bangladesh Independent Garment Workers' Union Federation (BIGUF) and the arrest of some of its officers; further arrests and police harassment of other unionists in the garment sector; arrests of hundreds of women trade unionists in 2004 whose case was still pending before the courts; and obstacles to the establishment of workers' organizations and associations in export processing zones (EPZs). It further observed with regret that many of the discrepancies between the Bangladesh Labour Law of 2006 and the provisions of the Convention concerned matters upon which the Committee of Experts had been requesting appropriate legislative action for some time now.

The Committee noted the Government's statement that the Labour Law of 2006 was adopted following a process of consultations with the social partners over many years. It further noted the Government's indication that it was in the process of reviewing the Labour Law, within the framework of the Tripartite Consultative Committee, in order to bring its provisions into conformity with the Convention in respect of any remaining loopholes. As regards the allegations of arrests and detentions, it noted the Government's statement that none of these persons remained in custody nor were the charges against them being actively pursued. The Commit- tee observed that in reply to its request concerning technical assistance, the Government stated that it would conduct a needs assessment and request such assistance if needed.

Expressing its concern over the apparent escalation of violence in the country, the Committee stressed that freedom of association could only be exercised in a climate that was free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of workers' organizations. The Committee requested the Government to provide full particulars to the Committee of Experts in respect of all the allegations of arrest, harassment and detention of trade unionists and trade union leaders and urged it to give adequate instructions to the law enforcement bodies so as to ensure that no person was arrested, detained or injured for having carried out legitimate trade union activities.

The Committee further urged the Government to take measures for the amendment of the Bangladesh Labour Law and the EPZ Workers' Associations and Industrial Relations Act so as to bring them into full conformity with the provisions of this fundamental Convention as requested by the Committee of Experts. The Committee emphasized in this regard the serious difficulties prevailing as regards the exercise of trade union rights in EPZs and the restrictions on the right to organize of a number of categories of workers under the Labour Law. It called upon the Government to ensure that all workers, including casual and subcontracted workers, were fully guaranteed the protection of the Convention. The Committee expressed the hope that the necessary concrete steps would be taken without delay and trusted that all additional measures would result in an improvement and not a deterioration of the trade union rights situation in the country. It requested the Government to provide a detailed report on all of the above matters for examination at the forthcoming session of the Committee of Experts.

The Committee decided to include its conclusions in a special paragraph of its report.